Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sowelu]

The OP says 'cogent arguments to convince others'.  That doesn't mean you need physical proof...unless your opponents won't be satisfied by anything less.  Which is valid I guess, but I guess that people who need physical proof don't enjoy philosophy, psychology, sociology, economics...

Noone's demanding absolute proof, but I feel you need at least evidence.  Something that psychology, sociology and economics generally try to use.

Eh.  I still consider existence to be not proof but evidence.  Matter of opinion.

I'm still waiting for us to find something really weird in physical laws or in math, something that makes us go "Wait, how did THAT get there".  Like, arranging the first 10^100 digits of pi in base 41 into a square matrix and seeing a perfect circle in zeroes.

Well, you can find hidden messages in anything if you randomly shotgun enough.  I mean, look at this:
http://cs.anu.edu.au/~bdm/dilugim/moby.html

Ooh, statistics is really nasty here actually.  I'm going to dredge out that coin flip analogy again that I like so much.

If your buddy bets you twenty bucks against your five bucks that if you flip a coin of your choice twice, it will come up heads both times...chances are that if he wins, it was a fair bet.  The odds are only 1/4th, but the probability that 1) he wants to cheat you and 2) he has the power to cheat you are both miniscule.  It was a fair bet, too.

If some shady guy on the street bets you twenty bucks against your twenty bucks that if he flips a choice of his choice twice, it will come up heads both times...chances are that if he wins, it was NOT a fair bet.  Yes, the odds are the same, but the probabilities that 1) he wants to cheat you and 2) he has the power to cheat you are both very high.  It wasn't a fair bet, either--it was way against his favor--which just makes it more likely that he knew he would win.

So, the probability of a coin flip coming up heads twice is pretty misleading.  When you're looking for something VERY unlikely--much more unlikely than that link you gave--knowing the p-value is only part of the story.  You have to compare "probability that this would happen at random" versus "probability that something is fishy", or in this case, "that Some higher power decided to put something there to screw with us".  Unfortunately you can only ever guess at the second value!  You can put that probability that a higher power decided to screw with you as an incredibly low value...like, really really infintesimal.  But it MUST be nonzero.  Nothing is ever zero.  The odds of you being a brain in a jar are probably much less than ten to the minus one-hundred, but they're sure not zero.  If we find something sufficiently weird--even if it is statistically possible, but really REALLY unlikely--there comes a point where you will have to accept it as evidence.

[Leafsnail]

Eh.  I still consider existence to be not proof but evidence.  Matter of opinion.

Well... not really.  Unless you can provide a reason why it's more reasonable to assume that a deity appeared out of nowhere in the first place...

So, the probability of a coin flip coming up heads twice is pretty misleading.  When you're looking for something VERY unlikely--much more unlikely than that link you gave--knowing the p-value is only part of the story.  You have to compare "probability that this would happen at random" versus "probability that something is fishy", or in this case, "that Some higher power decided to put something there to screw with us".  Unfortunately you can only ever guess at the second value!  You can put that probability that a higher power decided to screw with you as an incredibly low value...like, really really infintesimal.  But it MUST be nonzero.  Nothing is ever zero.  The odds of you being a brain in a jar are probably much less than ten to the minus one-hundred, but they're sure not zero.  If we find something sufficiently weird--even if it is statistically possible, but really REALLY unlikely--there comes a point where you will have to accept it as evidence.

I completely and utterly disagree.

For one thing, a deity that was spontaneously generated at the start of the universe with that idea in its head is at least as unlikely as whatever they supposedly planted in it.

Secondly, with all the billions of things you have to shotgun at, you'd expect at least one of them to give a staggeringly unlikely result.

Thirdly, there could easily be a mechanism explaining it.  Wow, in a right angled triangle, a^2 + b^2 = c^2 is always true!  It's a huge coincidence, right?

As a side note... would you count the fact that we have not found anything of this nature as evidence that a deity doesn't exist?

[Sowelu]

I'd say that all of "Universe appeared out of nowhere", "Prime mover appeared out of nowhere, created universe", and "Prime mover has always existed, created universe" are incredibly unlikely.  "Universe has always existed" doesn't work; even if a neverending cycle of big bangs are possible, they had to start somewhere.

Invoking the anthropic principle, perhaps wrongly, I assert that NONexistence is the correct status quo, thus existence is unusual, and needs an explanation one way or the other.

Secondly, with all the billions of things you have to shotgun at, you'd expect at least one of them to give a staggeringly unlikely result.

Thirdly, there could easily be a mechanism explaining it.  Wow, in a right angled triangle, a^2 + b^2 = c^2 is always true!  It's a huge coincidence, right?

As a side note... would you count the fact that we have not found anything of this nature as evidence that a deity doesn't exist?

To answer that 'secondly':  Depends.  If we've got "billions" of things to shotgun at, and we find something that appears to be the product of an intelligence that has not a one-in-a-billion chance, but one-in-a-billion-billion-billion-billion chance, I still argue that that would be solid evidence.

To answer that 'thirdly':  Yes, finding the mechanisms that caused an incredibly unlikely result does defeat their use as evidence.  However, I would argue that the very existence of some of these mechanisms are, themselves, evidence of a creator.  I acknowledge that many, or even most, would disagree with me here.  I assert that chaos is the status quo, and the order we observe is unusual.  The fact that everything fits together so neatly inspires faith in me, and in some others.  I'm not offended by others who assert that order is the natural status quo, though.  I think that stuff like this is a very valid difference of opinion, but I've seen people get nudged closer to religion just by studying math.

To answer that side note:  Yes.  I do count the fact that we haven't found anything of that nature as evidence against the existence of a creator.  I still feel that the evidence for is greater.

[Leafsnail]

I'd say that all of "Universe appeared out of nowhere", "Prime mover appeared out of nowhere, created universe", and "Prime mover has always existed, created universe" are incredibly unlikely.  "Universe has always existed" doesn't work; even if a neverending cycle of big bangs are possible, they had to start somewhere.

Invoking the anthropic principle, perhaps wrongly, I assert that NONexistence is the correct status quo, thus existence is unusual, and needs an explanation one way or the other.

Well, how do you know?  Is there a good reason why nothing rather than something works better?

Or... you could try Antimatter, which means you can start with nothing, and which has now been properly examined  (interestingly, this would mean the sum total of matter in the universe is still 0).

To answer that 'secondly':  Depends.  If we've got "billions" of things to shotgun at, and we find something that appears to be the product of an intelligence that has not a one-in-a-billion chance, but one-in-a-billion-billion-billion-billion chance, I still argue that that would be solid evidence.

Hmm... unless this "product of intelligence" explicitly states there's a deity, though, I'd still be reluctant to take it as evidence of one.  Otherwise it isn't telling us anything other than "there is some kind of mechanism behind this".

To answer that 'thirdly':  Yes, finding the mechanisms that caused an incredibly unlikely result does defeat their use as evidence.  However, I would argue that the very existence of some of these mechanisms are, themselves, evidence of a creator.  I acknowledge that many, or even most, would disagree with me here.  I assert that chaos is the status quo, and the order we observe is unusual.  The fact that everything fits together so neatly inspires faith in me, and in some others.  I'm not offended by others who assert that order is the natural status quo, though.  I think that stuff like this is a very valid difference of opinion, but I've seen people get nudged closer to religion just by studying math.

I... don't think God would be able to change maths, in any case.  It is what it is.  2+2 remains 4 no matter what way you spin it.

Such an argument is possibly more valid from a physics perspective, but if you look at, say, quantum mechanics, you'll see how horribly chaotic and unordered it is.

[Siquo]

Well... not really.  Unless you can provide a reason why it's more reasonable to assume that a deity appeared out of nowhere in the first place...

Now you're just being reasonable. There are good reasons to be unreasonable.
There is no scientific evidence that it exists. You seem to believe (note the word) that no evidence equals no existence. That's okay, but then it was going to be hard to convince you that America existed in the year 1200 if you lived in Europe, then.

The people who take the side of theism or agnosticism in modern-day debates always formulate their concept of god specifically so it becomes impossible to prove or disprove.

It's hard to have a discussion with someone who changes the rules then sticks their fingers in their ears.

I believe these two are similar in meaning. Whose rules, and what rules? If hard evidence or proof is needed, it doesn't exist. God is probably beyond the scientific domain, and thus cannot be formulated as a disprovable scientific hypothesis. If those areas of debate scare you or confuse you, I invite you to join in and leave your limitations behind.

Or, try to make a disprovable scientific hypothesis about the existence of a multiverse. It's equally hard, and we'll just have to move the conversation beyond the basic level of "science".

My personal "proof of God in mathematics" is Eulers' identity. It is awesome.

[Leafsnail]

Now you're just being reasonable. There are good reasons to be unreasonable.
There is no scientific evidence that it exists. You seem to believe (note the word) that no evidence equals no existence. That's okay, but then it was going to be hard to convince you that America existed in the year 1200 if you lived in Europe, then.

You're kindof sawing off the branch under your feet there.

I don't think that no evidence = no existence.  I think that no evidence = disregard it as a possibility until there is evidence.  Because... well, there are just too many possibilities with no evidence behind them to believe in them all.  And yes, that applies to you to.

Incidentally, there's plenty of geological evidence of America existing in 1200.

[Shrugging Khan]

Math = God, because pretty? That's just cheap. How about I go with Stillbirth = No God, because ugly?


There is no evidence for the existence of god. There is plenty of evidence for the existence of deluded humans.

[Siquo]

There is plenty of evidence for the existence of deluded humans.

At least we can agree on one point

[Shrugging Khan]

Oh, the hilarity 

[Sowelu]

Euler's Equation is what I use for my example too.  It's a culmination of gathered parts that are less "Pretty" and more "what the ending of Lost should have been like", relating e, i, and pi in ways that are kind of scary.  I heart it, evidence or not.  Also, I'm pretty sure we discovered that matter is more common than antimatter--something like a particle that oscillates between two states which controls whether it'll be matter or antimatter, but which spends more time in the matter state than the antimatter state.  Ran contrary to expectations but explained a lot.

Then again this is starting to derail, so maybe I should go make a new topic.  MAGNETS HOW DO THEY WORK

[Andir]

I'd say that all of "Universe appeared out of nowhere", "Prime mover appeared out of nowhere, created universe", and "Prime mover has always existed, created universe" are incredibly unlikely.  "Universe has always existed" doesn't work; even if a neverending cycle of big bangs are possible, they had to start somewhere.

Invoking the anthropic principle, perhaps wrongly, I assert that NONexistence is the correct status quo, thus existence is unusual, and needs an explanation one way or the other.

Wait. Wait. Wait... How does something not existing until it's created work where having always existed does not?  The laws of conservation pretty much defy that train of thought.  Do you think babies are just created and their mass is simply created by magic?  IMO, the Earth, the Universe and everything was formed from mass/energy that existed for eternity and will continue to exist even after it's torn apart by some other source.  It may not be in the same shape it is today, but it will eventually be recycled and used again.

I guess that's the difference between you and I.  I fail to believe that all this had to be created (It actually boggles my mind that someone would think that all the mass in the universe was "created") and you fail to believe that it could have always just been here.

[Micro102]

Don't worry, the more we advance in science the less people will believe in god.

Would people give up the idea of god if we make everyone immortal?



And I too believe that the universe always existed. Just because human brains are unable to comprehend infinity doesn't mean it's false.

[Shrugging Khan]

1. The existence of anything rather than nothing does not make sense, as some poster explained.
2. Yet, something exists.
3. OH EM GEE IT MUST BE JESUS' DADDY WHO DUN IT!

[Sowelu]

1. The existence of anything rather than nothing does not make sense, as some poster explained.
2. Yet, something exists.
3. OH EM GEE IT MUST BE JESUS' DADDY WHO DUN IT!

That's.....a bit insulting, wouldn't you say?

I guess that's the difference between you and I.  I fail to believe that all this had to be created (It actually boggles my mind that someone would think that all the mass in the universe was "created") and you fail to believe that it could have always just been here.

Yeah, I think that's a pretty fair analysis.  What was the initial state of the universe then?  I mean, it's constantly in flux.  This incarnation started with the Big Bang.  Presumably there coulda been something before that, sure, maybe a cycle--but where was the starting point?  I can't really argue that it's impossible to not have a starting point, but I'd like to hear you explain your take.

And seriously, Khan.  "Prime Mover" is a completely different philosophical concept from "Christian God".

[Andir]

My personal thoughts on the matter is that we can only see so far in space because of an as of yet unknown/untested property of light. (maybe it decays after some time... maybe it is being deflected away from our sight by things in space... I don't know.)  With this limited visibility, we assume that our universe is only as big as we can see and therefore must have some limits and because of that, a start.  My thoughts on the whole deal is that the universe is more vast/infinite than we can currently understand and the decay measured by scientists (claiming the Big Bang evidence) is simply the after effect of some big event in our corner of space.  Maybe the bi-product of a super-massive explosion... maybe we are at the tail end of a Galactic Particle Emitter or something.  Still, it just feels wrong to say that it all came from a small speck that exploded and created mass and energy.